A true battle against terror

Friday

Sep 28, 2007 at 12:01 AMSep 28, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Terrorists' aims are not to eradicate our entire population, although if they could they would likely try.

While killing as many infidels as they can, the ultimate goal of a terrorist is to put fear into the hearts and minds of their intended victims and force the targeted populace to change their way of life, always looking over their shoulders, eyeing their new neighbors, wary of strangers speaking foreign languages, not knowing when or where the next attack will occur.

With passage of the so-called Patriot Act and some of its onerous provisions – some bordering on martial law – Osama bin Laden and the Sept. 11 mass murderers ensured that their acts of terrorism instilled sufficient fear in the United States and its leaders that we abandoned some of the constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. In that respect, the terrorists succeeded.

But two recent court decisions, including one this week by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken have begun to restore some of the protections of the Bill of Rights that the Bush administration has tried to usurp in its zeal to strike back against any and all real and perceived enemies.

Attorney Brandon Mayfield of Portland, wrongfully charged in connection with the 2004 Madrid bombings that killed 191 people, brought suit after he learned the FBI surreptitiously listened to his phone calls and searched his home and office without his knowledge under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provision of the Patriot Act.

Aiken, rightfully and courageously, ruled that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizures. Fear, she said, is not enough reason to abandon who we are.

Aiken's decision comes on the heels of a New York judge ruling that the FBI cannot force an Internet service provider to turn over its customers' phone and computer records without some just cause.

With a few years distance now from the 2001 slaughter of thousands of innocent victims, we have to let reason and principle replace the emotion that allowed the Patriot Act to be passed without debate or dissent.

When someone here or abroad burns and American flag, it rightfully ignites our anger and passion. But that does nothing more than hurt our feelings and show disdain for one of our national symbols.

We should be more outraged when our own leaders at least figuratively burn the Bill of Rights and furtively conduct surveillance on their own citizens. That is what countries without democracy do.